How is our world going to be re-shaped and why? The industrial revolution

According to the numbers on your spreadsheet above: the rate of deforestation in the Amazon was high and fluctuating before 2004, with a maximum of ~29,000 km2 per year in 1995. Then started a consistent decline which continued until 2012, which was a result of a very successful Brazilian conservation program. After 2012 the trend has reversed, and the rate of deforestation has increased 60% since its minimum. Under Bolsonaro, it's feared that the situation could go back to 2004 or worse.
The spreasheet starts in the 70s and you can clearly see that since then deforestation has consistently decreased. Fear of what could be are just personal opinions, not backed up by numbers. The increase by 60% you are mentioning is ridiculously low comparing to previous decades to be worried about, and numbers are not supporting a rising trend back to 2004 or before. Actually it's too early to see any rising trend in numbers.

Bolsonaro is not a threat, he just played at being lax about Amazon protection.

You should be happy that Amazon forest in not being damaged as they would want us to believe.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Those who intentionally spread misinformation are pathetic to me, and it should be a crime. Because it is willfully done knowing that it will damage others or the collective life.
It's really hard to prove that disinformation is being spread willingly and intentionally. But I personally feel it should be a crime, for media sources to fail to disclose financial conflicts of interest, and especially those related to funding from government sources and major corporations.

What about those who continue to promote misinformation, even after they are presented with clear evidence of error?

For example, consider the headline quoted above:

"Even if the entire Amazon rainforest burned down, we'd be okay.

Here is some information from the body of that very article:

The resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon, which had decreased more than 80% following a peak in 2004, is alarming for many reasons. Tropical forests harbor many species of plants and animals found nowhere else. They are important refuges for indigenous people, and contain enormous stores of carbon as wood and other organic matter that would otherwise contribute to the climate crisis.
In sum, Brazil's reversal on protecting the Amazon does not meaningfully threaten atmospheric oxygen. Even a huge increase in forest fires would produce changes in oxygen that are difficult to measure. There's enough oxygen in the air to last for millions of years, and the amount is set by geology rather than land use. The fact that this upsurge in deforestation threatens some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich landscapes on Earth is reason enough to oppose it.
So, while the article is challenging the meme that there's any danger of exhausting the earth's supply of oxygen, the author was by no means intending to endorse burning the entire Amazon rainforest. And, contrary to your analysis of the figures, the author says there's an alarming resurgence of forest clearing in the Amazon.

I seriously doubt if the author of the paper, even wrote that unfortunate headline. It's often the case that hurried editors are responsible for coming up with headlines for stories they've hardly read.

So what do you say, Emma? Can we at least get rid of this (presumably unintentional) misinformation or disinformation?

As an admin of this website, what do you think I should do when someone posts misinformation or disinformation here?